Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)M

mindbleach

@ mindbleach @sh.itjust.works

Posts
1
Comments
2678
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • I dunno

    Jump

  • So you’re saying there no such rule as 2(ab)²=2a²b².

    That would mean 2(81)2 is 128. You are the one saying it's not 2a2b2, because you think it's 22a2b2, and that 2(81)2 is 256. I'm not touching anything without exponents because exponents are where you are blatantly full of shit.

    if it has been written as 2(ab)², not if it has been written a(b+c)²

    Source: your ass. Every published example disagrees, and you just go, nuh-uh, that up-to-date Maths textbook must be wrong. You alone are correct on this accursed Earth.

    Hey look, another one of the textbooks you insist I read says you're completely wrong: "The multiplication sign is often not included between letters, e.g. 3ab means 3 a b." Page 31 of the PDF... right above where you've dishonestly twisted the "expanding brackets" text. Next page: "3(x+y) means 3(x+y)."

    Page 129 of that PDF, exercise 5, question 14: simplify 2(e4)2. The answer on PDF page 414 is 2e8. Your bullshit would say 4e8.

    Right below that, exercise 5, question 4: 4(44)4. The answer on PDF page 414 is 1.72x1010. The bullshit you've made up would be 1.10x1011. 5 questions 7, 9, 10, and 11 also have the same a(b)c format as 2(8)2, if you somehow need further proof of how this actually works.

    PDF page 134, exam practice question 10a, simplify 3(q2)2. PDF page 415 says 3q6. Your bullshit says 9q6.

    Damn dude, that's five textbooks you chose saying you're full of shit, and zero backing you up. One more and I get a free hoagie. Your bullshit has brought us to max comment depth.

  • A lot, I'd reckon

    Jump

  • Well, figuratively.

  • Using AI Generated Code Will Make You a Bad Programmer

    Jump

  • Reading code is harder than writing code. The author acknowledges this and pretends it means the opposite of that.

    He then suggests a world where any idiot can describe a thing into existence means less individual control than scrolling through the app store and hoping someone's done what you want. Like doing a thing on your own computer means someone else gets all the money. My guy - what money?

    Listen. I taught myself QBASIC using the help file. I majored in computer engineering. I've done some esoteric shit, both high-level and low-level. Fuck anyone scoffing at people making their own programs, without jumping through those hoops. These stupid objects are supposed to be a bicycle for the mind. Even children should be able to use them to the fullest possible extent.

    These stupid chatbots are the closest we've come to a computer that does what you tell it to.

  • It’s time to accept that the US supreme court is illegitimate and must be replaced

    Jump

  • It's just these six assholes. The institution is not the problem; it's that decades of conservative ratfucking have installed a majority of ratfuckers.

  • I dunno

    Jump

  • There is no special case. You made it up by confusing yourself about "dismissing a bracket." To everyone else in the world, brackets are just another term. Several of the textbooks I've linked will freely juxtapose brackets and variables before or after, because it makes no difference.

    Here's yet another example, PDF page 27: (6+5)x+(-2+10)y. And that's as factorization. This Maths textbook you plainly didn't read was published this decade. Still waiting on any book ever that demonstrates your special bullshit.

    7bx with b=(m+n) becomes 7(m+n)x and it's the same damn thing. Splitting it like 7xm+7xn is no different from splitting (m+n)/7 into m/7+n/7. Brackets only happen first because they have to be reduced to a single term. A bracket with one number is not "unsolved" - it's one number. Squaring a bracket with one number is squaring that number.

    The base of an exponent is whatever's in the symbols of inclusion. Hence: 6(ab)3 = 6(ab)(ab)(ab).

    No, it has a a(b-c) term, squared

    It has a (b-c) term, squared. The base of an exponent is whatever's in the symbols of inclusion. See page 121 of 696, in the Modern Algebra: Structure And Method PDF you plainly got from Archiveorg. "In an expression such as 3a2, the 2 is the exponent of the base a. In an expression such as (3a)2, the 2 is the exponent of the base 3a, because you enclosed the expression in a symbol of inclusion." You will never find a published example that makes an exception for distribution first.

    On the page before your screenshot - 116 of 696 - this specific Maths textbook refers to both 8x7 and 8(7) as "symbols of multiplication." It's just multiplication. It's only ever multiplication. It's not special, you crank. 8(7) is a product identical to 8x7. Squaring either factor only squares that factor.

    Only if you had defined it as such to begin with

    Variables don't work differently when you know what they are. b=1 is not somehow an exception that isn't allowed, remember?

    There's an exponent in 2(8)2 and it concisely demonstrates to anyone who passed high school that you can't do algebra.

  • What happened to tank trains?

    Jump

  • Is the answer "accurate artillery?"

  • I dunno

    Jump

  • 3(x-y) is a single term…

    So is 3xy, according to that textbook. That doesn't mean 3xy2 is 9*y2*x2. The power only applies to the last element... like how (8)22 only squares the 2.

    Four separate textbooks explicitly demonstrate that that's how a(b)c works. 6(ab)3 is 6(ab)(ab)(ab), not (6ab)(6ab)(6ab). 3(x+1)2 for x=-2 is 3, not 9. 15(a-b)3x2 doesn't involve coefficients of 3375. 2(x-b)2 has a 2b2 term, not 4b2. If any textbook anywhere shows a(b)c producing (ab)c, or x(a-b)c producing (xa-xb)c, then reveal it, or shut the fuck up.

    2(ab)2 is 2(ab)(ab) the same way 6(ab)3 is 6(ab)(ab)(ab). For a=8, b=1, that's 2(81)(81).

  • I dunno

    Jump

  • From 2(8)², which isn’t the same thing as 2(ab)²

    a=8, b=1, it's the same thing.

    False equivalence is you arguing about brackets and exponents by pointing to equations without exponents.

    This entire thing is about your lone-fool campaign to insist 2(8)2 doesn't mean 282, despite multiple textbook examples that only work because a(b)c is a*bc and not acbc.

    I found four examples, across two centuries, of your certain circumstances: addition in brackets, factor without multiply symbol, exponent on the bracket. You can't pivot to pretending this is a division syntax issue, when you've explicitly said 2(8)2 is (2*8)2. Do you have a single example that matches that, or are you just full of shit?

  • I dunno

    Jump

  • I have never said that, which is why you’re unable to quote me saying that.

    ...

    1/2(8)²=1/256

    That's you saying it. You are unambiguously saying a(b)c somehow means (ab)c=acbc instead of abc, except when you try to nuh-uh at anyone pointing out that's what you said. Where the fuck did 256 come from if that's not exactly what you're doing?

    You're allegedly an algebra teacher, snipping about terms I am quoting from a textbook you posted, and you wanna pretend 2(x-b)2 isn't precisely what you insist you're talking about? Fine, here's yet another example:

    A First Book In Algebra, Boyden 1895, on page 47 (49 in the Gutenberg PDF), in exercise 24, question 18 reads, divide 15(a-b)3x2 by 3(a-b)x. The answer on page 141 of the PDF is 5(a-b)2x. For a=2, b=1, the question and answer get 5x, while the bullshit you've made up gets 375x.

    Show me any book where the equations agree with you. Not words, not acronyms - an answer key, or a worked example. Show me one time that published math has said x(b+c)n gets an xn term. I've posted four examples to the contrary and all you've got is pretending not to see x(b+c)n right fuckin' there in each one.

  • “We want a Nex Playground in every living room” | Nex CEO David Lee interview

    Jump

  • "What if we redid the skeezy camera that nearly killed the Xbone, but pointed it at your children? We expect to sell one billion units."

    Yeah good luck with that.

  • I dunno

    Jump

  • Juxtaposition is key to the bullshit you made up, you infuriating sieve. You made a hundred comments in this thread about how 2*(8)2 is different from 2(8)2. Here is a Maths textbook saying, you're fucking wrong.

    Here's another: First Steps In Algebra, Wentworth 1904, on page 143 (as in the Gutenberg PDF), in exercise 54, question 9 reads (x-a)(2x-a)=2(x-b)2. The answer on page 247 is x=(2b2-a2)/(4b-3a). If a=1, b=0, the question and answer get 1/3, and the bullshit you've made up does not.

    You have harassed a dozen people specifically to insist that 6(ab)2 does not equal 6a2b2. You've sassed me specifically to say a variable can be zero, so 6(a+b) can be 6(a+0) can just be 6(a). There is no out for you. This is what you've been saying, and you're just fucking wrong, about algebra, for children.

  • I dunno

    Jump

  • Then why doesn't the juxtaposition of mc precede the square?

    In your chosen book is the example you're pestering moriquende for, and you can't say shit about it.

    Another: Keys To Algebra 1-4's answer booklet, page 19, upper right: "book 2, page 9" expands 6(ab)3 to 6(ab)(ab)(ab), and immediately after that, expands (6ab)3 to (6ab)(6ab)(6ab). The bullshit you made up says they should be equal.

  • Russia Has Lost 1.2 Million Troops in Ukraine—More Than Its Entire Pre-War Army

    Jump

  • It's not meant to be understood. They are not arguing - they're just saying it. That's the sequence of words which signals loyalty and promotes the ingroup over the outgroup.

    That's the only thing conservatives ever do.

  • Deleted

    AI’s Unpaid Debt: How LLM Scrapers Destroy the Social Contract of Open Source

    Jump

  • Folks, they train on Disney movies. Intellectual property is not a factor.

  • I dunno

    Jump

  • Because BRACKETS - ab=(axb) BY DEFINITION

    “Parentheses must be introduced”!

    But you understand E=mc2 does not mean E=(mxc)2.

    This is you acknowledging that distribution and juxtaposition are only multiplication - and only precede other multiplication.

    In your chosen Introduction To Algebra, Chrystal 1817, on page 80 (page 100 of the PDF you used), under Exercises XII, question 24 reads (x+1)(x-1)+2(x+2)(x+3)=3(x+1)2. The answer on page 433 of the PDF reads -2. If 3(x+1)2 worked the way you pretend it does, that would mean 3=9.

  • Hello, We're Firefox

    Jump

  • "Ice Weasel. Love is the everchanging spectrum of a lie."

  • Hello, We're Firefox

    Jump

  • Mozilla has been kinda stupid since the browser was also called Mozilla.

  • I dunno

    Jump

  • This is your own source - and it says, juxtaposition is just multiplication. It doesn't mean E=mc2 is E=(mc)2.

    Throwing other numbers on there is like arguing 1+2 is different from 2+1 because 8/1+2 is different from 8/2+1.

  • graphic design is my passion

    Jump

  • I can hear the scritching of nails over the lenticular cover.